Xeldrak

What did you do in KSP today?

Recommended Posts

*FACEPALM*

CSM orbit of the moon takes an hour and forty minutes.

Jebediah has an hour and 35 minutes of oxygen left.

I'll walk on the moon for about one minute and then try and chase the CSM in orbit.

Of course the one component I didn't test.

I just lifted off from the moon. I haven't unlocked flags yet, apparently. And I forgot the crew report. At least the RCS is finally working.

EDIT: Of course the game had to crash at the most dramatic moment. Good night, I'll try again tomorrow.

Edited by Ultimate Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the official release of GPP finally out of the way, I did some celebratory tinkering with my personal expansion for the GN Drive mod. Mainly, I spent my time configuring and texturing the GN-powered Warp Drives. This one is the Inferior engine, and part of the end-game of my next try at a science play-through.

...That shadow though. :o 

T40ZAmT.jpg

I gave the engine a WIP repaint to look like OPT, and taped on the Celestial Being logo for giggles.

UnUUs4v.jpg

 

Edited by JadeOfMaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I designed and tested an Apollo style lander for the Mun, suitable for two Kerbals. Has a descent stage and an ascent stage. Works great as a lander as well as a science platform!

TuVEYpR.png

Spoiler

YGNj9s9.png

JpdgFmd.png

0osMAMF.png

M8Imy0W.png

q3ET418.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CatastrophicFailure said:

Psst... your landing gear... seems limp...

The designer I hired forgot to check whether the drills and cargo ramps would reach the ground. This has been rectified for later missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finished my "kerpollo" mission today. Having used the create a kerbal feature, I placed myself into KSP, and my flag since the passing of my beloved kitty Pumpkin <flag was made by a fellow player I found whilst watching Das Valdez, sadly I forget who made it, but, I do still thank him quietly every time I see the flag> in her honor. My kerbal is facing the flag with helmet lights on to illuminate the flag. Thats Bob standing there mugging it up for the camera! By sheer accident I managed to splash down near the KSC. That burn was meant as a periapsis change only, wound up way way too deep and just went for it. The final picture is after I spotted the island runway and swung the camera back to see the KSC!

9RGlju6.png

 

and landing

NlrsPzK.png

First Munar Landing mission in the new save, is in the bag!

original post 02:03:30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been building standardized SSTO rockets that can survive Kerbin re-entry and landing. I've been using payload sizes based on the 1.25m fuel tanks. So far I've got a 2.25 ton, a 4.5 ton, and a 6.25 ton finished, although the 2.25 has a tendency to lose aerodynamic stability at the end of its landing sequence. It's a lot of fun trying to design payloads for them that fit within the weight constraints and the size constraints for the 2.5m fairing.

 

2 hours ago, bobcook said:

I designed and tested an Apollo style lander for the Mun, suitable for two Kerbals. Has a descent stage and an ascent stage. Works great as a lander as well as a science platform!

That is a very cool looking lander. I'm curious about your choice of ascent engines, though. It doesn't look like you've got a max accel of more than 4m/s in zero-g, which seems kind of low to me. A couple twitch engines instead would double that for only a tiny bit more weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Those are the SpaceX BFR solar panels, right? What mod they from?

Should be Near Future Technology - the Solar package their.

Edited by KerbMav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

messing around i found something that could be useful.

lets say you build  a rocket using any 4 engines on its mainstage, those engines work great in atmosphere but not really any high gains once in space. our goal is to make this rocket  get to full orbit, its just shy of doing this at 2000 m/s so it makes about 3/4 of the orbit or so. we could add another small tank of fuel but with 4 engines its going to eat it up and maybe give us small gain and hit orbit.

but then i thought "what if i decoupled 2 of the engines mid flight?" when gravity and wind resistance its no longer an issue so i did that at 500 m/s and now with the lost weight of the engines and vacuum taking over we exceeded that 2000 m/s from last time and hit 2875m/s just from ditching 2 engines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After @Tex posted in a thread about deploying rovers, I wanted to suggest using the mk3 cargobay, but then I pointed out how my stock mk3 deployed rovers were actually terrible rovers: top heavy with a narrow track and very low ground clearange that tipped over easily and couldn't climb steep hills. Example:

Hy9viC0.png

They were fine for driving around for a few hundred meters on relatively flat terrain - ie for making surface bases and fueling craft landed near the surface base- but they were terrible for long distance drives or exploring rough terrain that one could't easily land an air'spacecraft.

So I decided to go about trying to make a rover that could actually drive fairly well, that can deploy easily from my "standard" cargobay (1 long mk3 bay with a node mounted 1.25m docking port, and a mk3 cargoramp on the end, no part offset or surface attachment used)

I started making what is a fairly decent, not too big rover, and then adding 0.625m docking ports to the sides and a duplicate of it. That way it can link to a copy of itself and have a wide track and relatively short wheelbase. The ground clearance is also much better than the large 2.5m base module "rovers" I previously made:

2r339BS.png

It can be easily deployed on stock Mun using something like this:

Spoiler

B0pfK7w.png

But I play on a 3x resize now, so something a bit bigger and beefier is needed:

ObDAfWs.png

 

 

Then I modified it to have internal crew space, and since i use TAC-LS, life support supplies, so it can go on long distance drives in rough terrain:

CQoiNXB.png

It still linked just fine despite the different weight distribution of the two rover sections:

WX0oRRL.png

6i7LcHT.png

I could not flip it on the flats around kerbin by just trying a hard turn - I hadn't modified the traction settings, but it would just skid/drift rather than flip.

Spoiler

evDfnIx.png

^ Jeb wanted to ride outside

Bob practices the science, then goes back inside:

NYKnAhz.png

l4xBLoX.png

Jeb follows:

STeBpbD.png

They do some more testing - the ladders don't seem to work, but they can climp up the wheels it seems. Jeb tried climbing up the science junior from the external command seat, then walking across to the enclosed cabin, he broke things along the way:

dnh2ku5.png

The rover sections, unlinked:

nzLrwpE.png

71NzxiF.png

Test completed, all sections returned, jeb will be advised not to climb on the science junior or around breakable antennas and solar panels:

ZrDWJUw.png

I figure this flatbed design can also accommodate 1.25 convert-o-trons and mini drills, and can link nearly indefinitely to make mini-surface bases. If life support is used, 1.25m carbon extractors and water purifiers are easily added, as are 1.25m food containers. I can also fit "container greenhouses" and "algae farms" from the KPBS mod, to produce food, on the flatbeds - but I don't see the point, the docking port height will necessarily be compatible with the docking ports of the 2.5m designs, since they all dock in the same cargobay.

Next transfer window I'll send this science collecting rover to Rald... I still haven't sent anything into the volcanoes or "Noctis Labyrinthus"(at least that's what its called on mars, and I used a mars heightmap) because of the steep terrains there

MqcEFfR.png

tyLPdtO.png

Of course, now I'm doing everything in 3x rescale, but with terrain height only 50%higher, so things aren't as steep, but still...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today Pioneer 11 flew through the Saturn System.

jt4yL4u.jpg

Titan Encounter, Periapsis: 612km

YZV4wV6.jpg

kHHfjDg.jpg

wbTvRnx.jpg

yfBgNGe.jpg

Bye Saturn! :)

I also placed the first station in orbit around the Moon:

Spoiler

SZ8nM20.jpg

lk4lp9d.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I used KWRocktrey for the first time! Made a rocket called "Kirbea IB"#

Spoiler

knTppGz.png

z59fPF3.png

GtobzGv.png

lfRseMj.png

osWxJ9K.png

Z8O9vxm.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Allocthonous said:

That is a very cool looking lander. I'm curious about your choice of ascent engines, though. It doesn't look like you've got a max accel of more than 4m/s in zero-g, which seems kind of low to me. A couple twitch engines instead would double that for only a tiny bit more weight.

Can't really disagree with your logic, the Twitch is a better performance choice in every way, but I liked the look of the lower profile of the Spider engine when mounted to the side of the lander. Also loved the visual effect from the plume of eight Spiders firing up at the same time. Sometimes its just about how it looks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LQA2O9m.png

 

I had no idea trees have colliders... The more you know!

But that still counts as a good landing, right? :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jul_Le said:

LQA2O9m.png

I had no idea trees have colliders... The more you know!

But that still counts as a good landing, right? :wink:

FYI, in stock they don't but mods that change the terrain (like SVT) or planet mods have the ability to enable colliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

This is where you're going to have problems, bruh. It's going to be very difficult to find support and get mods to work when your install is half a dozen versions out of date. You're pretty limited in what you can do with modding planets in stock, and no mod author is likely to provide support with a .90 compatible version of anything, if such can even be found. You're not being criticized, we're just telling it like it is. You'll make life much easier on yourself if you upgrade to KSP 1.3, Kopernicus planet editor is pretty easy to learn, and if you've no existing save you're trying to preserve (which modding planets would destroy anyway), there's really no reason not to upgrade. :)

i cannot upgrade to more than 1.0, because even in 1.0 some textures aren't showed and eats much ram

20 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

It's not criticism as such. The issue with you as a mod maker using 0.90 is that if your mod is good people will want to play it, but very few people still play version 0.90.

I would advise doing any modmaking for the current latest release (in this case, 1.3) because firstly you will have a vastly greater audience for your mod than if you continue to use 0.90 (in fact, I suspect that if you continue to develop a mod for such an outdated version you might be the only person to ever use it), and secondly it will mean that you won't get anyone complaining at you for your mod not being up to date. Of course, none of this matters if your mod is only intended for personal use, but even then I don't see why you'd be using 0.90 due to the enormous improvements made to the game in more recent versions (not least the major improvements in performance).

Even if the mod you plan to make is simply for personal use, you're unlikely to find anyone willing to help you for a far outdated version of the game (as CatastrophicFailure said) simply because everyone else has moved on. People who are capable of answering questions like yours are almost guaranteed to prioritize helping everyone who is making mods for the current game version before helping someone who is still using the game as it was 2 years ago.

In short, if you want to make a mod for public use you'll be wasting your time by making it for version 0.90, and if you're making it for personal use you'd be better off upgrading to version 1.3 anyway.

someone will be able to make a version for 1.3 (i think)

12 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I finished my "kerpollo" mission today. Having used the create a kerbal feature, I placed myself into KSP, and my flag since the passing of my beloved kitty Pumpkin <flag was made by a fellow player I found whilst watching Das Valdez, sadly I forget who made it, but, I do still thank him quietly every time I see the flag> in her honor. My kerbal is facing the flag with helmet lights on to illuminate the flag. Thats Bob standing there mugging it up for the camera! By sheer accident I managed to splash down near the KSC. That burn was meant as a periapsis change only, wound up way way too deep and just went for it. The final picture is after I spotted the island runway and swung the camera back to see the KSC!

9RGlju6.png

 

and landing

NlrsPzK.png

First Munar Landing mission in the new save, is in the bag!

original post 02:03:30

i'm about to make my first mun landing, it consist of 10 missions until a landing:

1- make a flyby around mun in a free return trajectory(FRT); preparing

2-achieve an orbit around the mun, orbit sometimes and return to kerbin; preparing

3-make a orbit around kerbin, for testing the lander; preparing

4-flyby mun in FRT with the lander to test; preparing

5-use the lander engines for orbit mun, then undock and back to kerbin; preparing

6-orbit mun and make a unmanned landing on mun, no return; preparing

7-orbit mun and make an unmanned landing on mun, returning to the ship; preparing

8-send a rover to mun and make an unmanned landing near it; preparing

9-orbit mun for find a good landing site; preparing

10-land in mun and plant a flag; preparing

11-land in mun near the rover, and plant a flag; preparing

12-land in mun, and drive the rover for find a site for building a base; preparing

facts: all missions are being made with orion and SLS

more missions will be announced

Edited by Spaceman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never ending dev testing ( I should make a Haiku)

Upon discovering that others did not know that RSS had a release in the works with Uranus' Moons included I worked on testing that a bit with Principia because "We Cannot Afford a Principia Gap!"

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealSolarSystem/commit/87837e69b4f8f21634872422cfae09aab16edb0d

New Biomes and textures maps, added moons and planets (Vesta, Ceres..)

ez26Rgk.png

032OwY2.png

KCT version shows already picked tech nodes but yet to finish researching as orange in green and fixes the old stuck purchase bug from hovering over a purchase node that is too expensive.

B2KLkiT.png

So far Principia (Cayley) is working fine.

r4ia3lQ.png

 

 

 

Edited by Bornholio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Spaceman17 said:

i cannot upgrade to more than 1.0, because even in 1.0 some textures aren't showed and eats much ram

Try out 1.3 or 1.2. And check that everything is up to date.

51 minutes ago, Spaceman17 said:

someone will be able to make a version for 1.3 (i think)

But then its not yours, is it? And, sorry, I don't think anyone besides Linuxgurugamer, really wants to update mods that aren't theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Try out 1.3 or 1.2. And check that everything is up to date.

i'll try 1.1 and 1.2, to see the thing of the textures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ultimate kerblin 3 challenge

mission control must have been impressed with my recent work and have trusted me with it, i must deliver them a space craft only worthy of such a mission. all the best engineers were contacted, all the dumpsters were searched, and we designed and built a craft mission control would indeed be proud of.

The Kerbal SP-1............S for space.....P for plane.....and since it only has room for 1 the kerbals felt this name was perfect.

 

A732C815EA35728C0C5B3DB9CDB638BC4DC687AE

and away we go

1ADE1342B27F4B49C4A7B55B0EE335E9B782C261

fuel tank de-coupled and our 4 mini nuclear engines pollute space but give us great gas milage

9858BEE613A345974060A2F5C26560B47F5738450A3F04765F425F3CA5C4357997E0FF71D6604C77

first stop minus

FA76E220ECCCBD5367394B8D1381D10B31B93E57

2nd stop the mun

30063994E9E0FACD9CEA4E3C7B8F26505D729BD4

will we make it?

9829136DCAF7510F370A6EE3FAE9D0023D4D2A90

the parachutes go out just before the launch pad

B91FC18468C46FD6DFE6D73A65C75D6D645D9F7F

and we land right back where we started \o/

0BAC13304F7078AFAD738ED66C1C3E1F287467A2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I tend to make really BIG things in KSP, but every once in a while I get the urge to make something small. And this is one of those times. One of my mods, I'm not sure which, includes an RCS which is fueled only by Air Intake, and Electric Charge. So I decided to make a nearly stock plane using those new RCS as the engines. And this very tiny microplane with an RTS as the primary structural linkage is the result. After installing a radio control module Jeb gave it to Val as an anniversary present in remembrance of her first flight.

GFAjluB.png

Kerbal added for scale...

GFEmuOk.png

Edited by Corscaria
Added another picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I theorized about the Reputation to Post ratio on the forums. It is just essentially the KDR of Kerbals. But wait! TWR comes into play! Oh god! So I thought of a way to see how good someone is at KSP. I call it the RTPTWR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.